This morning, I received an interesting email regarding a letter that someone sent to the Arizona Daily Star on climate change and how it may affect Tuscon. The letter is a hoot and so is the response from reader Craig.
Email From Craig
The following letter to the editor appeared in the Arizona Daily Star, which is Tucson’s major newspaper and is known as the Red Star, because of its left-wing bent.
As climate change is becoming more threatening, sooner or later refugees will be on the move. All cities, including Tucson, will need to prepare. Some issues need to be settled. Will refugees who are armed be admitted? What types of housing will be available? Will residents be asked to take in refugees? Will funds be available for food, clothing, and lodging? Let’s not wait until this movement is upon us! Set policies and prepare now, Tucson, or we will be sorry!
Grace
Memo to Grace
Yes, Grace. If the world begins to broil, people will move to the Sonoran desert instead of Minnesota. By the way, Grace, have you noticed that economic refugees from Mexico have already moved en masse to Tucson? Many are now armed gang members who prey on their fellow Mexicans, which explains why almost every ramshackle home in central and south Tucson has security bars on doors and windows. That’s one reason why my new home is in the far northeastern part of the Tucson metro area, outside of the city limits. My wife and I were admitted in spite of owning guns.
Cheers,
Craig
What a hoot.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Great article! Thank you for sharing. It really is a hoot! About like that here in West TX where I live.
LikeLike
The only reason climate change has any traction is people like Grace believe they’re all going to die by it. Soon.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t that be great! That would definitely start chipping away at the 9 billion Grace is concerned about.
LikeLike
Well, actually, there is a grater danger to humanity and it has to do with oil extraction… The problem is that we are draining all the oil that we can find to feed our selfish thirst for more and more energy, except now we are starting to drain the oil out of the earth’s axle. Soon the bearings supporting the earth’s axle are going to overheat and freeze up and all the features on the earth will shift when the rotation suddenly ceases. We will need to prop up all the buildings on the east side to counter the inertia and prevent collapse. That’s where my new organization comes into play. I will collect a small sum initial of 1000.00 dollars from each building owner to go into a fund which will pay for the propping measures in case the overheating occurs. Of course there will be some small administrative losses to the fund going forward which will require a small yearly fee of about 100.00 dollars. It’s a small price to pay to protect us world citizens,.
Signed Your friend, Al Gore.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey Al !
I was just wondering if you could extend your program to trees, pets and garden furniture? We have two small trees and some daffodils that might not be inertia resistant, and we are concerned the goldfish might get stuck to the side of his bowl. Also we have some chairs that fall over easily.
I just want to say what a great service you are providing and that our house is still standing upright after all the work you carried out.
Keep it up!!!
P. Doff
LikeLike
Longest recorded period of a hurricane not hitting the US just passed, when after Katrina the pundits claimed that we should get used to more storms. So, if the most recent storms are due to GW, what about the lull we just had?
LikeLike
Hurricane frequency and strength are terrible measures of climate change. They’re far more dependent on winds than temperatures. IMO, the best evidence of global warming is shrinking glaciers and sea level rising. Note I said global warming and not climate change. They’re two different things. The earth is slowly warming for debatable reasons, but how it will effect climates is completely unknown.
LikeLike
I live north of the Tucson city limits in the Foothills. Most peaceful and beautiful place I have ever lived, with extremely low taxes, fine schools, no Police, only very professional deputy sheriffs…
LikeLike
I moved to AZ after living overseas for +20 years… and I love it! What a great place to prepare for all that climate change. You see, here in AZ anything over 110 is hot, and the difference between 110 and 120 is not even noticeable.
Besides that, we have lots of guns, freedoms, low taxes, gold is legal tender, vaccine exemptions, and charter schools (which the lefties seem to hate). Arizona is a hidden hot gem!
LikeLike
This IS humorous, but just think, of all the damage that AlGore has done among the innocent population who cannot think for themselves, and rely on the media to do it for them!
LikeLiked by 1 person
If by thinking for yourself, you mean ignoring 97% of scientists who have studied global warming then I agree. Why stop there though, let’s ignore all science.
LikeLike
The only way you can think for yourself on such a complicated topic is to do years of study to be a climate scientist. Unless you are one I think it would make sense to trust the people who understand all of the competing data.
LikeLike
One for you.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/
LikeLike
Man-Made Global Warming is ‘Baloney’
H.L. Mencken:
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots
Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.”
LikeLike
Like Craig hinted at in his quip about Minnesota vs the Sonoran desert, there is no more fundamental refute of the notion that global warming is some sort of “threat”; that simply looking at population densities in the warmer vs colder latitudes of the planet.
“Grace, honey, if it’s getting too hot where you’re at, there’s plenty of vacant space in Cannuxico. Just head on north and jump the border like the rest of ’em……”
LikeLike
I hope you guys are all correct about climate change being a hoax, because I have kids in college that would like to live a full life without the massive die off in species and all the fun that goes along with it.
LikeLike
… kids in college? Let the indoctrination begin!
LikeLike
If worst come to worst, they could move some miles north. And bring along their favorite species….
LikeLike
“…the massive die off in species…”
Where do you get/hear such hyperbolic nonsense? A mass extinction event? Really?
For all you youngsters (+ hipchick) – the chicken-little’s have been screaming about melting ice caps & rising oceans FOR DECADES now… and NOTHING HAS HAPPENED.
The people screaming “climate change!” & “global warming” have been dead wrong FOR DECADES… in fact, they were never correct in the first place.
I feel sorry for people whose own wits & senses are so weak that they’ll believe anything that the snakeoil salesman (dr. feelgood) preaches…
Global warming? The planet has actually, in fact, entered a cooling phase recently… just part of the same planetary climate & weather cycle that has been happening for hundreds of thousands of years…
LikeLike
Ha, ha….. Problem is, Grace may be right, and you others haven’t thought it through. Look, put all your plans on hold just long enough to go all the way to the other extreme, let’s say to Guy McPherson at ‘Nature Bats Last’ who will explain to you why the arctic and antarctic ice is melting, and why the methane gas is escaping from beneath the melting permafrost in Siberia, and then come back here and apologize to Grace, because she just could be right. Civilization is a heat engine……. cows are heat engines, people are heat engines ……..and there are 9 billion of us, and climbing ……..
LikeLike
The atmosphere is a heat engine. It transfers warmth deposited by solar energy in the tropics to the poles, where the bulk is radiated away. We just had the lowest June temperature recorded on the top of the Greenland ice sheet, which is believed to have gained a small amount of mass this year. We’ve been told the Arctic Ocean would be free of summer ice by now. It’s not happened. No mention is made of the record Antarctic sea ice from 2014, 2015 and 2016. Why is that? Texas was supposed to be in a perma-drought; what happened to that?
Climate change is happening. It’s been happening for literally billions of years. The Arctic ice cap is believed to be 2.2 million years old. The Antarctic started to form about 33 million years ago. There have been 8 known glacial episodes in the pas 740,000 years. If both poles melted (unlikely in any relevant time frame) it would merely return Earth to conditions that prevailed for more than half its existence. we are currently in what is known as an inter-stadial to geologists, inter-glacial to laymen. The entire warming thing is so overblown as to have become a parody. The Eemian (the previous inter-stadial) is believed by many paleo-climatologists to have been warmer than this one.
In the 1960’s it was claimed we were sliding into a new “ice age” This is technically incorrect, since any time you have permanent polar ice caps Earth is in an ice age, which means we are already in one. What we are not in (yet) is a new glaciation event. Grace, and most of her ilk, are what I think of as the New Druids.
As for the 9 billion and climbing, that’s only due to the Third World; as in the West birth rates have dropped below replacement rate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed
Katherine Ellen Foley
September 05, 2017
It’s often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that global warming is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity.
But what about those 3% of papers that reach contrary conclusions? Some skeptics have suggested that the authors of studies indicating that climate change is not real, not harmful, or not man-made are bravely standing up for the truth, like maverick thinkers of the past. (Galileo is often invoked, though his fellow scientists mostly agreed with his conclusions—it was church leaders who tried to suppress them.)
Not so, according to a review published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology. The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results.
Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming.
“Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,” Hayhoe wrote in a Facebook post.
….
https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/
LikeLike
I never mentioned any papers; neither 3% or 97%; the latter is actually from a study run from
Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton and John Cook. That methodology has been disputed. I provide just one example.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/97-percent-solution-ian-tuttle
First off, I never claimed we haven’t warmed. what is unknown is to what extent industrial civilization is responsible. In 30 years of study, the actually sensitivity of the climate to increased CO2 has yet to be pinned down. Empirical studies(actual temperature data) put it at 1/2 to 1/3 the figure assumed by the IPCC.
The original hypothesis was that increased CO2 would lead to a feedback with increasing water vapor. It was actually the water vapor (which exists in much higher concentrations than CO2 ever will) that would cause the bulk of the warming. The absorption spectra of CO2
http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC
is much narrower than the absorption spectra of water
http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C7732185&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC
Google the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. You may get the idea the Earth has been much warmer. We won’t see that for many more millennia. We are in an interglatial. None have lasted more than 15000 years in the past 2 million. Each glaciation even has, of late, lasted 100,000 years. I’m reasonably familiar with all the arguments, pro and con. The AGW hypothesis never made geologic sense to me, regardless of what a blogger and a professor of science history want to try and prove. You should look into how many responses they actually got. Also, it wasn’t a range of physical sciences their questionnaire was sent to. It pulled on those who self-identified as climate scientists.
Consider, the climate models all this is based on run hotter than the actual temperature increase has proven to be. Do you honestly believe we can measure the average planetary temperature to hundredths of a degree? Large swathes of of the planet have no accurate temperature measurement even now. We only have 35 years of satellite data. As far as BEST data and the sea temp monitoring go, that his patchy as well, and mainly follows currents.
I repeat–CLIMATE ALWAYS CHANGES. Go look at the first sentence in the second paragraph of my original comment. All the major paleoclimate studies show the warmest part of the Holocene was about 5 to 9 thousand years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
Don’t be misled, there is still a debate going on in the scientific community; regardless of what the mainstream media present.
LikeLiked by 2 people
All the evidence trotted out also refers to temperatures measured in the last few decades if not 100 or so years. In geological terms that is nothing, 100 years of measurements in a system that is 4.5 billion years old is a measurement of 0.000002% of the earth’s historical climate. Its like measuring the temperature for the last few seconds of today and then making a statement about what the temperature trend is for the next month.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed”
The 97% is flawed as well. A NEW record 12 years without a major hurricane hitting the U.S. Tornadoes dropped off too.
Chart (decline in global tropical cyclones)
Nature is not cooperating with the climate scientists.
Also it is not about denial, it is about the fact that climate is always in a state of change. There is no permanent increase in temperature. Climate is cyclical. Malenkovich cycle, Eddy cycle, ENSO and AMO cycles.
Climate alarmism is a political propaganda campaign, not science.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ron J. wrote “Climate alarmism is a political propaganda campaign, not science.”
======
97% of scientists and 100% intelligent lay people would disagree with you.
But despite such overwhelming numbers taking the opposite side from you and a relatively few climate deniers, I am confident that you will continue to delude yourself into thinking that your arguments actually make sense.
LikeLike
You might be interested in this:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/
LikeLike
One for you:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/
LikeLike
Justaned…… I’m reading both sides of this issue, and it certainly wouldn’t surprise me if humans annihilated themselves out of some stupidity. Exponential change of any kind can be a problem that is not easily dealt with as we have witnessed with population growth as it skyrockets past 9 billion, and if humans have been increasing at such a rate it means that cows and land cleared for grass must also be expanding at exponential rates. Seems it was Dr. Al Bartlett of Univ. of Colorado who discussed this problem of exponential growth. Here is some recent Guy McPherson for anyone interested in the other viewpoint….. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJT_QDfgbfU
But if the scientists debating this can’t agree on the data, where does that leave us?
LikeLike
Maybe she’s thinking of people whose city / country gets buried by the ocean. Manhattan, Miami, etc.
LikeLike
And the cave man caused the ice age.
LikeLike
I live in Europe and there aren’t many Mexicans around.
I don’t know, I thought that might help people understand if I said that.
LikeLike
I think I’d rather have Mexicans than terrorists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Racism will not help the climate change shamrock.
LikeLike
The height of idiocy has to be the carbon tax. We have it now in Alberta and last month I received a payment of $50 directly into my bank account. I had no idea what it was for so I called the bank. They informed me that it was a rebate related to the government carbon tax. I guess another payment is coming next month.
Yup. My fellow taxpayers are now subsidizing my right to drive a full size pickup. I’m even one of those guys who always drives 10% over the posted limit. I don’t deserve a dime of taxpayers money but at least I’m doing my part to save the planet.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t know if you realize, but YOU are the taxpayer. 5c/litre of gas, etc, etc. You pay carbon taxes based on your usage, and every citizen divides the proceeds.
LikeLike
Global Dimming is real!
LikeLike
Sorry to prick your bubble, peepul but the Earth IS warming (whether from mankind or Sun cycles or aliens) and along with higher overall temps across most of the world, CO2 levels are also increasing. Which appears to be making our food less nutritious – even if you grow it yourself. Oops. We all gonna die!
=========
The great nutrient collapse
The atmosphere is literally changing the food we eat, for the worse. And almost nobody is paying attention.
By HELENA BOTTEMILLER EVICH
09/13/2017
Irakli Loladze is a mathematician by training, but he was in a biology lab when he encountered the puzzle that would change his life. It was in 1998, and Loladze was studying for his Ph.D. at Arizona State University. Against a backdrop of glass containers glowing with bright green algae, a biologist told Loladze and a half-dozen other graduate students that scientists had discovered something mysterious about zooplankton.
Zooplankton are microscopic animals that float in the world’s oceans and lakes, and for food they rely on algae, which are essentially tiny plants. Scientists found that they could make algae grow faster by shining more light onto them—increasing the food supply for the zooplankton, which should have flourished. But it didn’t work out that way. When the researchers shined more light on the algae, the algae grew faster, and the tiny animals had lots and lots to eat—but at a certain point they started struggling to survive. This was a paradox. More food should lead to more growth. How could more algae be a problem?
Loladze was technically in the math department, but he loved biology and couldn’t stop thinking about this. The biologists had an idea of what was going on: The increased light was making the algae grow faster, but they ended up containing fewer of the nutrients the zooplankton needed to thrive. By speeding up their growth, the researchers had essentially turned the algae into junk food. The zooplankton had plenty to eat, but their food was less nutritious, and so they were starving.
Loladze used his math training to help measure and explain the algae-zooplankton dynamic. He and his colleagues devised a model that captured the relationship between a food source and a grazer that depends on the food. They published that first paper in 2000. But Loladze was also captivated by a much larger question raised by the experiment: Just how far this problem might extend.
“What struck me is that its application is wider,” Loladze recalled in an interview. Could the same problem affect grass and cows? What about rice and people? “It was kind of a watershed moment for me when I started thinking about human nutrition,” he said.
In the outside world, the problem isn’t that plants are suddenly getting more light: It’s that for years, they’ve been getting more carbon dioxide. Plants rely on both light and carbon dioxide to grow. If shining more light results in faster-growing, less nutritious algae—junk-food algae whose ratio of sugar to nutrients was out of whack—then it seemed logical to assume that ramping up carbon dioxide might do the same. And it could also be playing out in plants all over the planet. What might that mean for the plants that people eat?
…..
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511
LikeLike
Global warming…..nature’s way of dealing with obesity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It was not too many years (decades) ago that Al Gore stated we were going into the ice age. Then, it became global warming. Now it is just climate change so any and everything is covered, no matter what! I remember winter spells so cold when the jet stream shifted and held the cold front in place for over 2 weeks that things froze in places that it never should have. I also remember warm spells where temperatures rose to over 120° in places that had not seen that for a while. Same goes for extended droughts and extended rainy times.
I worry more about the HUGE amounts of garbage being disposed of in the oceans causing shrinkage of the coast lines. How many cities and countries dump millions of tons of garbage into the oceans? Never hear a word about that. That is type of true man-made climate change that can damage the planet. It can poison the oceans. Then there are the things like the vast amount of radiation being dumped into the oceans from Fukushima. I do not believe CO2 is causing problems as that is what plants need to survive. If you are worried about CO2, plant trees! Stop dumping into the oceans, recycle everything. Drill wells and pump that radioactive waste water from Fukushima deep into the planet. That should have been done soon after disposal of radioactive water became a problem. Doing those few things would probably solve a lot of problems for the planet. As far as the planet warming or cooling, I do not believe that at all, because I have lived long enough to remember far worse extremes.
LikeLike
Note to Numb3rTech – Your PERSONAL weather experience in the small place you live has nothing to do with global effects. D’oh.
LikeLike
My small place is all over the globe in my travels, Joe! How many times have you moved across the planet and lived in different locations?
LikeLike
Gee whiz… Seal level rise can be attributed to all that garbage dumping… I wonder if there have been any studies to document that! You know, we Tucsonians only live 4,500 feet above sea level…maybe in a few years the beach will be near our front doors.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LMAO .. I am at 2,500 feet above sea level so I may need to move to your neck of the woods. TEPCO in Japan reported: “The plan still requires the approval of the Japanese government before TEPCO can proceed.Some 770,000 tons (metric) of tritium-containing water is currently stored in 580 tanks at the plant, reported the Japan Times.” This is to be released into the oceans. Link: http://www.alternativenewsnetwork.net/tepco-release-fukushima-waste/
Trash being dumped into oceans U.S.A. is about #20 on the list for ocean dumping … Link: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-polluting-ocean-trash-alarming-rate/ It turns out that five countries are the leading contributors to this crisis. And all are in Asia. Link: https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-01-13/5-countries-dump-more-plastic-oceans-rest-world-combined
We do live in interesting times
LikeLike
“The atmosphere is literally changing the food we eat…”???? No it isn’t Joe, Monsanto is changed the food. Don’t know how old you are but 20 years ago apples could be eaten skin and all and they tasted soooo…. excellent, but that wasn’t good enough. Monsanto wanted something that would last longer than a Twinkie and could be shipped en-mass over deteriorating roads so they modified it genetically with thick skin so it wouldn’t bruise easily. They taste horrible, so who cares how long they last, and the skins are so thick that if you don’t peel it, you’ll de-flesh your jaw trying to bite it. Luckily, we have our own apple orchard in Port Austin. They are the old fashioned trees, you know, the ones that can actually grow new trees from theor own seeds. Driving north on M-53 in Michigan, we don’t bother to stop for food until we are in Imlay City or anywhere north… The food changes from shit to great. Those people grow all their own stuff, the way it used to be everywhere. It is a whole different world and if it wasn’t for my wife having Lupus and the need to have her doctors close by, we’d live up there year round. It’s a whole different world.
PS There’s no global warming up there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Try growing food without carbon dioxide.
LikeLike
The POINT of the article was growing food with TOO MUCH CO2 apparently isn’t good either.
LikeLike
It seems nutrients were the limiting factor though, according to the posted article.
Off topic, but perhaps of interest, was a book positing that the major driver of evolution was actually fluctuating levels of oxygen. Interestingly, he linked decreases in oxygen levels to increases in CO2 levels. This was geochemical in nature-the cause of the fluctuations. Here:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sounds like an interesting book and theory. Scientists still don’t have any consensus on how dinosaurs managed to grow so large. Increased O2 might explain this.
LikeLike
Well just think, 120 million years ago the oxygen content of the air was about 29-30%. Today it is 20.9%. Are you gasping? The other gases are nitrogen at 78.9%, argon 0.9% and CO2 at .039%. Do you really think co2 going up a few decimal points is gonna make any difference really? Me neither.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As I said, it is off-topic.While the author accepts the “consensus” about CO2 being a cause of warming, the actual point of the book is that when oxygen levels get to around 15% we get major die-offs and new forms evolve to fill the niches. He uses the respiratory system of organisms through time, pointing out how dinosaurs evolved the very efficient respiratory system inherited by birds. I don’t know if I agree with his arguments, I found it a very interesting read.
LikeLike
“The great nutrient collapse
The atmosphere is literally changing the food we eat, for the worse. And almost nobody is paying attention.”
Sounds like junk science. I don’t eat zooplankton or green algae.
The first eastern American farmers moved west to fertile ground, as growing crops for food, depleted the nutrients in the soil, since they went into the crops that were then eaten, rather than returning to the soil. The mathematician is a few American centuries behind the curve.
LikeLike
You kill me Ron J. You are mentally thick as the proverbial brick. [roflol]
LikeLike
It seems many Americans will believe whatever they want. They will simply ignore the facts, if those facts disagree with their beliefs. Science doesn’t matter to them. I understand.
LikeLike
Actually, it’s more a case of disputing how to interpret some facts. remember, much of what is projected to occur is based on computer models which are programed to assume increasing CO2 increases heat retention in the troposphere. Two major predictions were an increase in tropic temperatures,and a “hot spot” in the tropic troposphere. We’re still waiting to see that. The majority of the warming was in the Arctic (not the Antarctic), and in northern winter night time temperatures. Can you provide data that says otherwise?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
It seems Arctic sea ice hasn’t disappeared this summer, although hardly near “normal”. Keep in mind geologic processes don’t always run on human time scales.
LikeLike
Just the facts. Just the actual data. Tens of thousands of data points measured by scientists all over the world. I’m glad you can point out a couple of those pieces of data. Why do you choose those two points, yet ignore the other 99.9% of the data points? Is it because you are desperate to find data that confirms your beliefs?
LikeLike
Should I really make a post of my own? How often do those pro-AGW point out data contradictory to their position?
I understand your point, which is why I said the argument is more about how the data is interpreted. Just as a quick point; in ice core records temperature is correlated to CO2 levels, but which leads, temp or CO2 levels? It is claimed the oceans are acidifying, but as temps increase less CO2 is retained by the oceans. Then you have the IPCC themselves saying the warming in the first have of the 20th century was likely natural, but an equal amount of warming in the last half IS caused by humans. Why should that be believed?
All these data points are mainly from the past 50 years, and much of that is either estimated or “krieged”-spreading one reading to cover areas where readings are absent. As I’ve consistently stated,that we have warmed is not disputed by the bulk of those disputing the anthropogenic aspect (yes you have the flat-earthers, but,hey, Nibiru…) :-). The argument is what actual danger exists; and to what extent, if any, are we the cause. Is it CO2 or land use patterns?
Ultimately, the assumption is we can accurately determine climate a century out, even though we can’t accurately determine the path of a hurricane more than 3 days out. Do you honestly think we’re going to pull earth out of the current ice-age,or prevent the next glacial event? I view this as the height of hubris. It’s the persistent scare tactics used by many that doesn’t pass my smell test, and what caused many to actually take a closer look.
Finally, as for myself; I don’t expect any one to pay me any mind. If I posted these arguments at Ars Technica, or SciAm (which I’ve subscribed to for years, BTW) I would be laughed at, or called names. Most wouldn’t even look at any data points posted. Positions have hardened in this, as in anything else that’s become political.
No, I don’t consider myself desperate at all. Do you? 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks for spending the time on your post. I appreciate your effort. I trust you realize that I haven’t personally stated anything about global warming or about possible causes of global warming, or climate change, etc.
I have simply stated that people are desperate to look only at data that might support their beliefs, and ignore all other data as fake or propaganda, as if scientists who are gathering the data are deliberately falsifying it. I find that sad, as I think scientists are always looking for the truth, even if it refutes their original hypothesis.
LikeLike
Yes, I too enjoy your posts. A couple of questions come to mind, if you have a minute. I’ve read of the considerable threat of methane gas release in Siberia from melting permafrost that has received no mention on this site, and also the idea that human activity is a ‘heat engine’ that is increasing heat at an exponential rate. And my understanding was that a large block of ice in Antarctica about the size of New Jersey was developing a large crack and appeared to be about to break free, which would, in turn, allow for a faster discharge of the accumulated melted ice beneath the ice sheet itself. Obviously a very complex phenomena occurring…
LikeLike
“Just the facts. Just the actual data. Tens of thousands of data points measured by scientists all over the world.”
After the El Nino spike peaked, the global land temperature dropped 1 degree C at a record pace. The global warming alarmists ignored that fact. There are now ignoring 12 record setting years without a major hurricane hitting the U.S. They are ignoring the record rainfall from Harvey was the result of the storm stalling out, which had nothing to do with climate.
They also ignored the other gulf hurricane which followed Harvey and fizzled out on the coast of Mexico with hardly a mention. Two extremely different hurricanes in the same gulf in the same time period. Harvey didn’t become a monster because of climate change, but because of the meterorlogical conditions during each hurricane at the time.
LikeLike
When you continue to cherry pick individual data points, rather than look at the whole picture of data points, then you are simply making my case that people will ignore the facts if they don’t fit with their beliefs. Personally, I will pay attention to the science. Thanks for your opinion though.
LikeLike
“facts”
one person’s “fact” is another person’s statistical error.
i seem to remember some academics @ East Anglia conjured some terrifying “facts” a few years ago… turns out those weren’t facts at all.
So you’ll excuse the 100% of intelligent lay people that don’t believe every morsel of tripe that is fed to them by KNOWN HUCKSTERS.
LikeLike
We must act fast,,,quick, we have to get all the baby seals out of the nuclear reactors before the whales eat them!
LikeLike
Hey, Tucson got nothin’ on Santa Cruz,,,
LikeLike
They “climate scientists” have taken today’s conditions and fed them into their “climate models”, and have been unable to get their models to produce the results which are observable today. If their.modles can not reproduce actual conditions, today, then we are to believe they can predict 10, 20, 50 years down the road?
LikeLike
people act as is if what happens in 10, 15, or 100 years matters. climate cycles over tens of thousands or millions of years
LikeLiked by 1 person
“people act as is if what happens in 10, 15, or 100 years matters. climate cycles over tens of thousands or millions of years”
Since humans have a life span of roughly 100 years or less, those time frames do matter. Anything that can affect my existence or the existence of my children and grandchildren does matter to me.
Perhaps you do not have children or grandchildren, or perhaps you do?
Either way, I find your attitude startling, since you personally will agonize over questionable monthly data to try to predict what this quarter’s economic growth rate is (something truly insignificant), yet you will ignore hard scientific data that suggests possible danger to people’s lives (something truly significant).
How odd.
LikeLike
“hard scientific data”…
prove it. because i’m looking at “hard scientific data” right now that demonstrates planetary warming & cooling cycles over hundreds of thousands of years, and this cycle has NOTHING to do with man or human inputs.
AGW cannot be proven. You will never convince smart people to believe is a bogeyman that even children scoff at…
LikeLike
As I say, you can ignore the facts and believe what you want. You can even believe that you are smart. Do what you want.
LikeLike
Mish, what a great can of worms you’ve opened here. But I’m still waiting to hear mention of methane gas in Siberia escaping into the atmosphere due to melting permafrost……. or Guy McPherson……. What strikes me is that here I’m reading people who desperately want to know, but can’t. None of us really knows much because there is so much to know…… Locally the vegetation is going bezerk, especially the nut grass and the bull thistle, but who knows what’s causing it. Maybe we should get back to the explosion in stocks and the fall of the dollar…….
LikeLike
Check your climate change IQ weekly at ddponline.org. First two questions: Would decreasing atmospheric CO2 reduce hurricanes? Is Arctic ice disappearing?
LikeLike